New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5349 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[JoeW]: By a simple aggregation of finite in size substances (grains) in infinite time one will get an infinite heap of sand.

[TVF]:Of course. I did not suggest otherwise. This is not different from counting integers one at a time. It takes an infinite time to reach infinity. But in the real world, no matter how far into the future you check the count, the count is still finite.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

What do you mean by a "real" world? Do you directly imply that a world where infinite time is reached is "unreal". Then, your infinite universe in time, mass, dimensions and scale is "unreal". You said it, not me. Your postulate is that the universe exists for an infinite time, as of now. Then, infinite time has already been reached, unless your universe is not "real" and in a real universe this cannot happen. YOUR CONTRADICTION IS EVIDENT.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[TVF]:Infinite time can never be realized in physical reality. It exists only as a concept, just as the set of all integers being infinite exists only as a concept. One can never reach infinity by counting long enough. And the sand pile can never reach infinite mass by accumulating long enough. Infinite time elapsed after a process starts never arrives.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

But you say that the universe has been around for an infinite time, has infinite mass, infinite dimensions and scale. Do you imply that in the way your universe exists there is no counting? If not, how do you conclude it is infinite? YOUR CONTRADICTION IS EVIDENT

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[JoeW]: Then:
1. Either the mathematics is wrong and the heap is constraint finite
2. or the heap is infinite and infinite physical forms exist
3. or the heap is finite because the universe is finite in time

[TVF]: Or 4. The heap is finite because an infinite time never elapses from a specific starting moment, even in an eternal universe.

You cannot count to infinity, even if you live forever!

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If the statement that "infinite time never elapses from a specific starting moment, even in an eternal universe", is not a contradiction in terms THEN WHAT IN THE WORLD IS A CONTRADICTION? YOU CONTRADICTION IS EVIDENT.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[JoeW]: So why are you telling me I cannot start accumulating grains today and in infinite time from now I won't be able to get an infinite heap of sand?

[TVF]

am not telling you that. In an infinite time, an infinite heap can exist. But starting from a specific moment, an infinite time will never elapse, even in an eternal universe.

Time forward from any moment is unbounded, and therefore infinite. But finite beings, forms, and processes can never get to infinity. The finite cannot become infinite.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is an example of multiple, nested contradictions, when compared with your previous statements where you claim that "starting from a specific moment, an infinite time will never elapse, even in an eternal universe". Now you point out that forward time is indeed infinite. YOUR MULTIPLE CONTRADICTIONS ARE EVIDENT

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[JoeW]:By you just saying it will remain finite and claiming common sense or worse making the logical fallacy of an "appeal to common sense", you are not proving anything.

[TVF]:When dealing with infinities, we must use analogies and one-to-one correspondences with other infinities because we are finite beings. The reasoning goes roughly as follows:

* One can add only finite increments to any finite quantity.
* No finite increment can ever convert a finite quantity to an infinite one.
* So no matter how many increments are added, the finite cannot become infinite.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You are contradicting your previous statements once more. We are not talking about infinite size but infinite sets. Your point is that infinite sets are concepts only. We are not adding grains, only accumulating grains and the resulting heap is the set, which is infinite and very real. You are becoming a victim of your contradictions. A set is a real thing. For example, three grains make a set. What you fail to understand is that sets result in new physical entities and an infinite heap of sand is a new entity made of infinite grains. A grain does not become infinite. ACTUALLY, YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE FOR THE FINITE BECOMING INFINITE. THIS IS A PROOF THAT ZERO BECOMES INFINITY. THERE IS NO HEAP OF SAND BEFORE ACCUMULATION STARTS, IT IS THE EMPTY SET=0. IN INFINITE TIME, THERE IS AN INFINITE HEAP, HOWEVER.

YOUR CONTRADICTIONS ARE EVIDENT.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[JoeW]:You will have to show me how an infinite, in time, aggregation of finite grains will not produce an infinite heap, in a rigorous, scientifically accepeted way, since you have rejected the use of an axiom to prohibit infinite substances.

[TVF]:In an infinite time, the heap would be infinite. But an infinite time from now will never elapse. No matter how far into the future you look, it's still only a finite time from now.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is another major contradiction, similar to Zeno's paradox. Your paradox is due to these contradicting premises:

1. Infnite time never elapses
2. The universe exists for infinite time

Conclusion? (I don't even attempt to make a conclusion from these)

How can anybody in the world make such contradictory statements? It's really puzzling to me. YOUR CONTRADICTIONS ARE EVIDENT.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[JoeW]

'm not rejecting a priori the possibility that you will offer such proof and be nominated for a Noble prize in math and physics.

[TVF]:How about offering that nomination again for something that is at least possible? I'll have a better chance. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I won't make you happy by turning "ad hominen", although IT IS EVIDENT that one gets such a right from your provocative CONTRADICTIONS WHICH ARE EVIDENT and insult scientific thinking and collective human knowledge. I leave it to the participants to decide your form of nomination. As far as I am concerned your statements can be used in an introductory course in logic to demonstrate disorganized and fallacious thinking.

YOUR MULTIPLE CONTRADICTIONS AT EVERY STEP OF THIS DEBATE ARE EVIDENT.

I suggest you join a sci.logic or sci.physics newsgroup and get some help in straightening out your contradictory views. There are people there that can help you with that. If something useful came out of this debate is the fact that you have to seek help and this is

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

kingdavid
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5597 by kingdavid

Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King

I bow to your humble knowledge – oh look at what we have here at:
”www. www.howstuffworks.com/question85.htm ”

“In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.

Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first..”

Seems someone could be in the courts soon for plagiarism he he he.

You are correct in the above scenario, however it does depend on the phrasing of the question.
1. Which came first the chicken or the egg of a chicken?
OR
2. Which came first the chicken or the egg of a non-chicken?

We are therefore both right depending on the phrasing of the question. Since the case of No.1 the egg of a chicken can only come from a true chicken. Hence chicken came first.

No.2 the egg of a non-chicken which created the true chicken came from a “Red Jungle-fowl” – part of the pheasant family which laid a non-chicken egg and out came a true chicken.

Lol,

dave

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

kingdavid
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5443 by kingdavid

Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King

oops the above reply was to atka on page 2

c ya

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5444 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: It's difficult to hold a reasoned argument with someone who keeps changing their definitions to suit their arguments.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Magoo (and later you) pointed out that I had been using "substance" inconsistently. I then realized that was true, conceded as much, and tightened up the definition. Would you rather I defended the inconsistency and made no change? Your complaint here strikes me as of the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" type.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>you either have a failing memory ... or you are only interested in being right, even if it is achieved through confusion or other tactics.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

We are discussing intellectual issues that have been debated by people throughout recorded history. Zeno's paradoxes generate considerable controversy to this day. Given the lack of consensus in the world at large, why do you make no allowance for people seeing matters differently?

I could complain that you have repeatedly insisted on statements or interpretations already ruled out. But I understand that the discussion has been lengthy and that I have used many different examples of the same idea to make my points, so some repetition of objections is inevitable.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Well, your present definition, that substance is "the collection of all forms", and that "forms are finite in duration", leads to creation ex-nihilo, I'm afraid. If forms are finite in duration, then they came from nothing and disappeared into nothing.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is a case in point of repetition of matters already corrected. I've pointed out several times that it is logically impossible for something to become nothing, and vice versa. Forms can only assemble or decompose into other forms. Nothing of importance to the argument (only to the terminology) changed when I agreed that substance was the collection of all forms and not the ingredients that make up forms. Forms are made of other forms through an infinitude of scales.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>you cannot eradicate the problem of coming into and out of existence of the forms.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Please cite an example -- any will do -- of a form coming from nothing or becoming nothing. If you have no clear, definite example, why do you insist this is a "problem"?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think this is what you are trying to say: Substances are eternal and there are an infinite number of different substances.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

With the corrected terminology, this should read: "Substance is eternal while forms are temporary. The amount ('mass') of substance is infinite, and there are an infinite number of different forms made from substance, but each form is finite."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>using the integer analogy, it is like saying that substances are the integers themselves and all elements in the integer set are eternal.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Forms are the analog of integers, and are finite. Substance is the analog of the set of all integers, and is eternal.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But the interaction (operation) between integers, say 1 + 2, yields something other than an integer.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No relationship between successive integers is required for my purposes. Each integer could be replaced with an identical apple. Integers and apples are forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You are basically creating a new set that has finite properties out of the operation. This set is composed of elements produced from operation between integers (substances).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Apples might be combined to make applesauce. Forms are made of other forms. But why create a new set? Relationships between set members are not needed for the analogy to work.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think it is possible to ask what came before substance. Or in terms of the integer set, what operations from which set that is as yet discovered leads to the existence of the integer set? Ad infinitum.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Certainly, it is possible to ask "What came before?" because in our experience with forms, which are temporary, there has always been an answer to that question. That is because forms change, so cause and effect apply. Substance, by contrast, never changes, is not an effect, and therefore had no cause and is eternal. Substance is therefore a concept, and not a material, tangible thing (a form). Forms come from substance just as integers come from the set of all integers. But a form is not substance (an integer is not the set of all integers), and substance is not a form (the set of all integers is not an integer). -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 7 months ago #5445 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I will not be checking these boards any longer as I see no point in engaging into a debate of this kind, so there is no need for you to reply to this post. Try to understand that no one is attacking you but instead trying to help you.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

LOL, this kind of post always means the poster has walked off in an angry huff and they can't resist coming back to see the results of their parting salvo. I particularly find the "no one is attacking you but instead trying to help you" hilarious. The multiple lines of capital letters and repetitions of YOUR CONTRADICTIONS ARE EVIDENT are a great example of how not to behave in a civilized discourse. I suspect JoeW will be back again to have at it again under another name. His style is so much like ATKO's one wonders if that was who he was to begin with.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5599 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The multiple lines of capital letters and repetitions of YOUR CONTRADICTIONS ARE EVIDENT are a great example of how not to behave in a civilized discourse.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

IT IS ALSO EVIDENT that you have nothing to contribute to the debate except critisizing what is written and even incriminating individuals that may have nothing to do with this.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I suspect JoeW will be back again to have at it again under another name. His style is so much like ATKO's one wonders if that was who he was to begin with.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I have no idea who ATKO is. Jeremy, you better start behaving yourself. This isn't appropriate behaviour for an adult. You resort to ironies and you attack personalities, not their arguments. I have nothing against TVF, he is probably a wonderful character and person. I was not even attacking his whole theory. Actually, I'm not a believer in any of the predominant theories. I only attack the contradictions of these theories. Even the standard model has certain contradictions. To say:

IT IS EVIDENT SOMETHING IS CONTRADICTORY

is not an attack directed towards an individual but at an argument.

Obviously, you have nothing to contribute except making critisisms. That's pathetic, indeed IT IS EVIDENTLY PATHETIC.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.462 seconds